To: metmom; murron; Persevero; ReformationFan; surroundedbyblue
Precisely, two thousand years ago there was no reference to fertilization regarding conception. They knew women had eggs and the man's sperm was referred to as his seed.
Moreover, NOBODY at that time ever imagined conception occurring outside the womb.
Remember that there were women in the Bible (notably Sara and Elizabeth) who were thought to be barren, but they continued to serve the Lord faithfully and were rewarded with sons.
41 posted on
11/08/2011 1:09:09 PM PST by
wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
To: wagglebee
If it’s true that the definition has been changed recently, then I will not recognize it.
If the whole purpose is to allow for abortion, it’s not a legitimate change, IMO.
fertilization = conception
43 posted on
11/08/2011 2:24:07 PM PST by
metmom
(For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
To: wagglebee; metmom; murron; Persevero; ReformationFan; surroundedbyblue
Precisely, two thousand years ago there was no reference to fertilization regarding conception. They knew women had eggs and the man's sperm was referred to as his seed.
Actually, they didn't "know women had eggs." This is demonstrated by the fact that they referred to the man's semen as "seed." The concept was that he planted a seed in the womb of a woman and it grew into a child, like a seed planted in the ground sprouts and grows into a plant. That is, within the semen were preformed humans that grew within the womb.
44 posted on
11/08/2011 2:41:27 PM PST by
aruanan
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson